Area (1999) 31.3, 221-227
Part of the action, or ‘going native’? Learning
to cope with the ‘politics of integration’
Duncan Fuller
Division of Geography and Environmental Management, University of Northumbria, Lipman Building,
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST. Email: [email protected]
Revised manuscript received 12 May 1999.
Summary Despite continuing work within feminist research on issues of political
commitment and critical forms of engagement, and an increasing desire within geography
to effect social change through our privileged positions as academics, active collaboration
with groups involved in social action continues to be fraught with ambiguity and anxiety.
/n this paper, I consider the potential role o f the ‘researcher as activist‘ through documentation of my interaction and repositioning of identities while becoming involved in
credit union development in Kingston upon Hull. I hope to illustrate how the maintenance
of a critical, multi-positioned (and repositioned) identity can be seen as a beneficial,
reflexive learning experience for researchers operating within ethnography, and for the
research itself.
Introduction
Within a discipline that has displayed sporadic interest in matters of relevance, social responsibility and
academic activism (see Johnston 1997), limited
attempts have been made to address the politics of
integration within a ’researched community’-issues
and worries that arise (Blomley 1994) when the
researcher (sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes
through choice) becomes actively involved within
the community or group that (s)he was supposed
to be ‘studying’. When such involvement occurs,
anxieties ensue. There is perhaps a tacit notion that
to be ‘committed’, to be inside the group and work
with it, results in the wholesale adoption of an
uncritical, unquestioning position of approval in relation to that group and its actions; thus the standard
of the research becomes questioned, its validity
threatened (Stanley and Wise 1993). The inclusion
within the research of the ‘researcher as person’ is
interpreted as an apparent inability to distance him/
herself from the events in which (s)he is participating,
ultimately undermining the authority of the voice of
the ‘researcher as academic’.
In simple terms, such issues have at their core the
process commonly referred to as ’going native’. This
is indicative of the development of a sense of
over-rapport between the researcher and those
under study (Armstrong 1993, 18). Hobbs (l988),
Armstrong (1993) and May (1993) have all
recounted how they were saved from reaching such
a point by ’going academic’; but whilst this might be
seen to be preferable to their potential new careers
(as petty criminal, football hooligan and probation
officer respectively), this paper argues for greater
awareness of another route through such troubles. In
particular, I hope to illustrate how mixing and
manipulating the researcher’s various identities, and
the transparent and overt recognition and awareness
of multiple positionality (as person, as academic, as
activist) can instead benefit geographical ethnographic research (and researchers) in three main
ways.
First, I want to suggest that the process of achieving such an aim, of being comfortable within the
integrated position, and of being assured that the
integrity of the research and the social group in
question is not being compromised, is a journey
laden with difficulties of both a personal and professional nature. This paper seeks to elucidate this
journeying, as I believe transparency of thought and
reflection will improve the design, implementation
ISSN 0004-0894 0 Royal Geographical Society (with The Institute of British Geographers) 1999
222
Fuller
and documentation of ethnographic research within
geography. I consider the political, emotional and
ethical issues that have arisen through my involvement as public relations officer inside the credit
union development movement in Kingston upon
Hull (the ‘researched community’), and the process
of learning to cope with the constant repositioning of
identity, reassessment of motives and multiplicity of
roles necessitated by such involvement (the politics
of integration). Secondly, and as a consequence of
this reflexive practice, I argue that a further layer of
professional accountability is added to the research
project, as the researcher interacts with his/her positioning and role(s). Thirdly, I note that this critical
engagement may also allow academics to play a
greater role in effecting social change-a role that
has perhaps been limited by the degree to which
such allegiances are seen within wider academic
circles to be methodologically and contextually
acceptable.
Positionality, situatedness and relevance
During the course of my research, I became increasingly aware that ’the personal i s the political’ (Stanley
and Wise 1993). Routledge (1996) has noted how
political awareness can come through personal
involvement, and that strategies of involvement and
integration enable the deconstruction of the all-tooapparent barriers between the academy and ‘the
lives of the people it professes to represent’ (Katz
1994, 73). In such a manner, academics can strive to
ensure that ‘scholarly work interprets and effects
social change’ (Katz 1994, 73).
Clearly, concern for the role, situatedness and
positionality of the researcher i s hardly new (see
Johnston 1997, Chapter 9). The interface between
geographical research and social action was
explored to some extent within the radical geographies of the early 1970s with the ‘revolution of
relevance‘ (Dickinson and Clarke 1972) and the
‘revolution of social responsibility’ (Prince 1971).
Smith (1976, 84) noted at the time how,
[tlhe real world requires involvement in social change,
for we are among the ‘actors’ ourselves. As part of the
problem, we must participate in the solution.
In many ways, however, participation (specifically
that related to notions of action and activism)
appeared restrained, particularly in terms of direct
contact and cooperation with those deemed to be
under study.
Bunge (1971; 1973a; 197313) represents one
exception to this general rule, as a member of the
academy who did take the step ‘onto the streets‘,
and in so doing helped identify and embody many of
the issues that can arise when such a move is made.’
In developing a geobiography of his home area in
Detroit, Bunge arguably achieved a,
redefinition of the research problematic and intellectual
commitment of the researcher away from a smug
campus career, to one incorporating a dedicated community perspective which pivots around what Howe
(1954), in another context, called a ’spirit of iconoclasm’. (Merrifield 1995, 57)
This redefinition was, however, an uncomfortable
process. Bunge’s ‘critical positioning’ (Merrifield
1995, 52) manifested itself through an awareness that his ’life had been spent buried in books’
(Bunge 1979, 170, cited in Merrifield 1995, 53). As
Merrifield highlights, the interaction between Bunge
and the Detroit locals, and his integration with them,
became defined in terms of survival, or ’the fragile
thread binding logic, ethics and politics’ (1995, 54).
Through his awareness of his positionality in relation
to the community, he questioned the ability of the
researcher to empathize and situate him/herself
within an impoverished community. This was encapsulated in his acceptance of the ’big important gaps’
that would exist as a result of his inability to situate
himself outside his past. In particular, the route
through this survival would involve emotional difficulty, an honest political and intellectual commitment to the expedition, and dogged determination
(Merrifield 1995); part of the learning was coping.
This desire to effect social change through our
privileged positions as academics is revealed more
recently by the works of Katz (1992), Blomley
(1994), Routledge (1 996) and Kitchin ( 1 999). In calling for a greater degree of engagement between
those within the academy and those on the ‘outside’,
these works are underlain by the belief that academic disengagement is tantamount to complicity in
oppression:
To ignore our implications in the strategies of domination that inhere in all modes of representation is
not only irresponsible, but ultimately disables political
engagement with the structures of dominance and
power. (Katz 1992, 496)
In order for the academic actively to counter
oppression, (s)he must occupy a space in which the
situatedness of our knowledges and positionalities
Part of the action, or ‘going native’? 223
is constantly renegotiated and critically engaged
with. This space necessarily involves the removal of
artificial boundaries between researcher, activist,
teacher and person, and proposes instead movement between these various identities in order to
facilitate engagement between and within them
(Routledge 1996). This critical engagement involves
a continual questioning of the researcher’s social
location (in terms of class, gender, ethnicity and so
on), in addition to the physical location of their
research, their disciplinary location and their political
position and personality (Robinson 1994). Use of
this ‘space of betweeness’ (Katz 1994) allows the
framing, manipulation and intermixing of questions
and work of substantive, theoretical and practical
significance:
By operating within these multiple contexts all the time,
we may begin to learn not to displace or separate so as
to see and speak, but to see, be seen, speak, listen and
be heard in the multiply determined fields that we are
everywhere, always in. In this way we can build a
politics of engagement and simultaneously practice
committed scholarship. (Katz 1994, 72)
between academics’ various identities, are informed
by, and reflective of, a range of personal and
emotional issues and consequences. These issues
and the need to interact with them should be
viewed as inseparable from wider methodological
considerations.
However, as Katz also suggests, the ability to
achieve such movement forms part of a learning
process for the researcher, a task encapsulated
within the following quote from Routledge (1996,
407):
This involves what Probyn (1992) refers to as placing
the experiences of our selves, and of our differences, to
work where our voices may be able to reach, touch,
change others, to the centrality of theorizing through
one’s feeling in and through another. It involves creating
heterogeneous affinities with resisting others that are
not merely confined to conferences, reading groups,
and specialty groups, but which articulate alternative geographies (both personal and collective) in
landscapes of our own choosing.
The constant renegotiation of positionality required
by such engagement is not an easy experience to
come to terms with personally or professionally, in
As Katz notes, however, at the heart of these either practical or theoretical terms. This is particuintentions lies a strange paradox. In our daily lives, larly the case when the researcher finds him/herself
we are constantly repositioning and renegotiating thrust into a participative or integrative position that
our identities and personalities in line with different had not been foreseen, intended or planned at the
situations, different spaces and different people, and outset of the work; when this happens, the resultant
we seem to do so relatively unproblematically; we effects (at least in my own experience) include the
are different people in different circumstances, we development of an almost persistent questioning of
have different identities or roles in different spaces oneself. Theorizing this experience has not been met
or places. When confronted with the seemingly by sudden revelation (Doel 1998); instead, it is a
straightforward task of moving between academic painful, abject journey, most notably (and simply)
and activist identities or activities, however, a range through the continuous possibility that one may
of concerns seems to come to the fore. For instance, have been affectingleffecting one’s own research
Blomley (1994) has noted that the relationship agenda. However, whilst claims to objectivity and
between activism and the academy continues to detachment are perhaps the easiest routes out of
promote feelings of anxiety. In considering the this conundrum (‘going academic’?), an alternative
’unexplored bifurcation’ in his political-academic life, route is for this journeying to be made more
Blomley talks of being ‘increasingly embroiled in transparent-to
be highlighted as an integral (or
political activism outside the academy’ (1994, 383). unavoidable) part of the research process. Such
He has struggled with the linkages between the thoughts must pervade the research as it is underacademic world and community activism, and taken, and continue to hover (Kristeva 1982) long
argues that consideration of such issues ’takes us to after any withdrawal has been made. This is part of
the heart of many knotty and unsettling questions the learning process-as
much reflection as it is
that also relate to academic inquiry and critical action.
theory’ (1994, 383). It can, however, be suggested
Put simply, the researcher needs to learn how to
that such feelings of anxiety are not really surprising, move between his/her various identities, and to be
in that (to turn Stanley and Wise’s 1993 statement aware (to be able to read) the effects of this movearound) ’the political’ is unavoidably ‘the personal’. ment on his/her research as a whole. As a consePolitical actions, and the subsequent movement quence, there i s a clear need for such skills and their
224
Fu//er
acquisition/development to be highlighted as an
integral part of the learning and documentation of
ethnographic method. From the supposition that the
experiential nature of ethnographic work is part of
its inherent strength as a research method, such
anxieties can be understood (at least in part) as a
product of the lack of inclusion of the researcher as
person within such work, and a lack of awareness of
the necessary learning required in order to come to
terms with this inclusion. Such a process can be
placed in the context of coming to terms with, or
being more aware at the outset of, the implications
of these roles within our more general identities as
academics. There is a need for the researcher to
consider his/her place within the research process,
not least because inclusion in this process is both
undeniable and unavoidable. Yes, there is a danger
of over-stressing the importance of the researcher as
person within our work. However, I would argue that
such a danger is slight, compared with the false and
misleading presentation of the researcher (and
research itself) as inert, detached and neutral.
Consequently, the remainder of this paper briefly
documents my learning to cope with the interaction
and repositioning of my academic and activist
identities. It seeks to develop the notion of a learning
experience within the need to maintain a critical,
multi-positioned (and repositioned) identity.
Becoming part of the action
My early interactions with the credit union community in Hull largely involved the textbook-style
ethnography of the detached observer: sitting and
observing, making no comment. However, as
Stanley and Wise have argued, ‘reasonable people
behave in ordinary and everyday ways-unless they
are odd or peculiar in some way‘ (1993, 156), and
looking at me looking at them, I certainly felt out of
place. Part of feeling ‘odd‘ was that I could walk
away at the end of any meeting or gathering and
return to my own social and economic normality.
However, the implications of my academic identity
would also surface in time. Despite these obvious
differences in experience, my relations with the
credit union development community began to
evolve over a period of months. Relationships that
had commenced on a professional basis became
increasingly personal. As I had got to know the
people involved, I became increasingly interested in
the development itself, and began to form an affinity
with its aims and operations.
As a consequence, in 1996, I was formally invited
to stand for a place on Hull Credit Union Forum’s
Committee, an umbrella organization that brings
together existing and developing credit unions in the
city in order to share issues of common concern and
develop resources, training materials, publicity and
other shared activities. At the time, I did not perceive
that acceptance of this position would present any
major problems for my work; indeed, I thought it
would probably improve my understanding of events
and views in Hull, and enable me to be closer to the
action. However, after the main positions on the
Committee had been elected, discussion began over
the proposed new role of public relations officer, to
handle the publicity aspect of credit union issues
within the city. I admit I suggested the role, as it
seemed a logical idea to have someone specifically
charged with raising public awareness, and, after
everyone had agreed that such a post would be
beneficial, I was nominated and seconded to carry
out the duties. This was also a task I happily
accepted. My reaction was that I was now in a
position to repay the community, not in terms of
any lofty academic intervention, but through more
relevant attributes such as writing and presentation
skills and the use of links I had developed with a
variety of other influential actors within the city. I
could also act as a facilitator for linking wider practical and theoretical considerationsfrom national and
international development with local strategies. As
such, I was pleased that I would have the opportunity to be useful to them-but certainly not in any
heroic sense.
However, as time progressed, my position within
the community was becoming more aligned to activism than it was to observing that activism. The
‘political’ had developed through the ’personal’,
requiring an increasing degree of reflection on the
way my own thoughts and actions were incorporated within the operations of these groups. This
was a complication that had not been expected or
considered at the beginning of my research, and
certainly had not been planned for at its outset. The
growing anxiety surrounding my role(s) was epitomized in January 1997, when it was announced that
the entirety of Hull City Council’s Leisure Services
department, including the city’s two part-time credit
union development workers, had been given 90
days notice in order to achieve the huge savings the
council were aiming for before 1 April. One part
of me was absolutely shocked, not to mention
extremely annoyed that the council were apparently
Part of the action, or ‘going native’? 225
willing (as 1 perceived it) to sacrifice the interests of
the credit union development community within the
city (Fuller 1997). However, on hearing the news,
I could not help another part of me thinking of
the great ‘copy’ such an announcement would
make-this was exactly the kind of material that
would benefit my research story. These thoughts
soon passed when I realized what the situation
actually meant, not only in terms of its possible
effects on the credit union movement in Hull, but
also in terms of the effect on all the workers involved,
and I was quickly ashamed of my initial thoughts.
learning to cope with the politics of
integration
In terms of the methodological issues involved, I was
becoming increasingly aware of the conflict between
the detached observer and the unavoidable inclusion of the researcher. My initial attempts at understanding these feelings were encapsulated by the
analogy of wearing different hats in different circumstances. However, as the situation became more
complicated, with more of my time being spent
working with and for the groups, the analogy shifted
to being two ‘heads’, one the researcher’s, the other
the ‘normal me‘, a problem vividly described by
Stanley and Wise (1993, 156):
[Hlow [can we] tell ‘when we are experiencing things as
a researcher’ and ’when we are experiencing them as a
person”?]We are encouraged to believe that there is a
difference between these two states of being-that we
do different things, conduct ourselves differently, in
each of them. If we fail to recognize our research as
suitably ‘objective’, ‘scholarly’, ’non-directive’, then we
may fail to recognize when the research has ‘begun’.
Frequently research students doing ethnographic work
report that none of the expected events and stages that
they have read about have occurred to them while
many that are taboo have (Ceorges and Jones 1980).
‘Rapport’ does not occur, ‘overinvolvement’ does,
‘detachment’ is lost sight of. And after this comes
the problem of coping with yourself as a ’failed
researcher’-usually at the point when your research
has to be written up and presented in such a way that
your credibility is maintained.
Over time, however, and as my experience with the
situation grew, the ‘hat and head’ problem seemed
to ease, as both ‘heads’ came together. I was learning how to position myself so as to be both committed and critical. At meetings, I became aware that I
was not treated differently, as perhaps I had been
before-I was no longer an outside observer, but
was inside making a contribution. Views, opinions
and strategies expressed at meetings and gatherings
would be represented sympathetically but critically.
Where I did not agree with what other members
were saying, or directions they were taking, I voiced
such concerns, whereas before I would perhaps
have criticized in the safety of my notebook. I was
also becoming aware that the other members at
such meetings were undergoing a learning experience in terms of their (inter)relationswith me, as my
label changed from ‘the researcher/academic’ to
‘fellow member’. The growing awareness of this
enabled me to place my anxieties concerning positionality in some form of context: for me, anxieties
arose through the relationship between me, the
group and my research; for them, anxieties were cast
in terms of the impact on their lives of my being
there, and the positive or negative effects that my
work could potentially represent. Indeed, initially, the
impacts were largely perceived as negative. However, over time, and as my commitment to credit
union development increased (essentially, as I
proved myself), they became aware of the positive effects that my position and research could
potentially bring.
This was exemplified through my interaction with
one study group in particular. After my election as
public relations officer, I found it particularly difficult
(especially during the period when I was uncomfortable in my new role) to develop strong links and
relationshipswith one of the city’s study groups. This
was mainly due to their belief that the forum failed to
serve any beneficial role for study groups prior to
their registration, and, as I had now taken on the
forum label (rather than simply being an outside
researcher), I was perceived as representing and
endorsing the views and beliefs of the forum. This
was a specific problem of access that I had not
previously encountered.
However, as I became more comfortable with my.
position(s), and learnt to negotiate between my
various roles, I undertook an examination of what
this group felt the forum lacked in terms of facilitating
study-group development. Through increased contact over a period of weeks, I attempted to ernphasize my researcher-identity over my forum role,
restoring their vision of me as the external
researcher, probing their likes and dislikes and
enabling them to articulate concerns that perhaps
would not have been shared with another forum
226
Fuller
member. With this information, I would then gradually rearticulate their views through my forum role,
allowing them to understand (and learn) how to
use my differing identities to voice their concerns.
Ultimately, these discussions fuelled a reassessment
of the activities of the forum, which has acted as a
catalyst for the evolution of a city-wide approach to
credit union development within Hull (Fuller 1998).
Conclusions
From my initial, pre-thesis perception of research as
’smooth . . . neat, tidy and unproblematic’ (Punch
1986, 13-1 4), I have gradually moved towards
Fraser’s assertion that critical social theory (and
critical geography) should frame:
its research program and its conceptual framework with
an eye to the aims and activities of those oppositional
movements with which it has a partisan, though not
uncritical identification. (1 989, 1 13, cited in Routledge
1996)
Indeed, Routledge goes further, arguing for engagement and collaboration, ’a situation of critical
thought as action-oriented and engaged with the
claims, goals, and actions of social movements’
(1996, 406), and I would agree with such sentiments. Where feasible, geographers should attempt
to make an active/direct difference, or at least not
consciously to avoid being in such a position. Clearly
there are implications for the relationship between
researchers and those social movements or groups
with which they have no apparent sympathy, or for
researchers working in areas of the subject where
the scope for increased synthesis of academic and
activist perspectives appears more limited. However,
it is better to engage with these implications than
to use them uncritically in order to justify political
neutrality and inactivity.
Such engagement, and the development of a
committed, collaborative approach to political issues
(in its broadest sense) ought to represent few problems, in that such aims are common features of many
forms of normal social interaction (Katz 1994). However, during the course of this paper, l have suggested that becoming ‘part of the action’ within a
researched community, specifically those associated
with forms of social action, is instead fraught with
difficulties. Such difficulties are related on a general
level to the way in which such an integrated position
-the
combination of professional and personal
identities-is arguably viewed in a negative manner
within academic circles. This is indicated by attempts
to steer researcher involvement away from the
dreaded consequences of ‘going native’: the apparent loss of validity, integrity, criticality, necessary
distance, formality and, ultimately, reputation. In this
context, the integrated position is one of anxiety, in
which the researcher is faced with the realization
that, by being incorporated into the research community that (s)he was supposed to be studying, (s)he
has effectively failed-as noted by Stanley and Wise
(1993).
Faced with such a situation, however, I have
argued that ‘going academic’ represents only one
alternative. There is a space in which constant
reassessment, renegotiation and repositioning of a
researcher’s various identities allows the development of a collaborative position from which ‘the
construction of flexible, practical relations of solidarity (Pfeil 1994, 225) [can be] constructed through
various forms of dialogue and struggle’ (Routledge
1996,414) between those in the academy and those
actively involved in effecting social change. However, the achievement of such an aim itself is fraught
with difficulties of both a professional and personal
nature, with anxieties developing as the personal and
professional spheres of the researcher/activist are
combined, intertwined, manipulated and recast.
Specifically, it represents a learning process of coming to terms with such multiple positionality and
repositioning, which is comparable to the learning
of so many other integral facets associated with
the effective use of ethnographic or participant
observation approaches to research.
As such, my paper has sought to make awareness
of such issues more transparent, through my own
experiences working inside the credit union development movement in Hull, and the documentation
of my own learning process. In so doing, it may also
provide a route for academics to play a greater role
in striving actively to effect social change, within a
discipline that, as Blomley (1994) has argued,
appears to be complicit in the paradox of educating
students in the simultaneous existence of the political and the theoretical, when our actions (or lack of
them) as academics often seem to indicate otherwise. Surely this is an ideal that is worth striving,
learning and putting ourselves on the line for?
Acknowledgements
This is a revised version of the paper ‘Part of the action: an
autobiographical account of credit union development’,
Part of the action, or ‘going native’?
presented in the ’Social exclusion and social action’ session
of the RCS-IBC Annual Conference, 5-8 January 1998.
Thanks are due to David Sibley, Cathy Bailey, Mike Barke,
Andy Jonas, Rob Kitchin, Rachel Pain, Rob Wilton and the
anonymous referees for their helpful comments on earlier
drafts of this paper. The responsibility forwhat is included in
this final draft is, unsurprisingly, mine alone.
Note
1 Whilst the context here is situated in terms of the
methodological insights that can be derived from his
work, Bunge’s relations with the academy itself can also
be viewed as indicative (to some degree at least) of the
perils of merging academic and activist roles.
References
Armstrong C (1993) ’Like that Desmond Morris?’ in Hobbs
R And May T (eds) lnterpreting the field: accounts of
ethnography (Oxford University Press, Oxford), 3-43
Blomley N (1994) ’Activism and the academy’ Environment
and Planning D: Society and Space 12, 383-5
Bunge W (1971) Fitzgera/d: geography of a revolution
(Schenkman, Cambridge, MA)
- (1973a) ’Ethics and logic in geography’ in Chorley R J
(ed) Directions in geography (Methuen, London), 31 7-31
- (1973b) The geography of human survival’ Annals of the
Association of American Geographers 63, 275-95
- (1979) ‘Perspective on theoretical geography’ Annals of
the Association of American Geographers 69, 169-74
Dickinson J P and Clarke C C (1972) ‘Relevance and the
newest geography’ Area 3, 25-7
Doel M (1998) ‘Sudden theory’ Paper presented at the
CCF-SCCRC (RCS-IBC) meeting on ’New critical
geographies-theory into practice, practice into theory’,
Coventry University, 16 September (copy available
from CCF website at www.mailbase.ac.uk/lists/crit-geogforum/files/marcus.htm)
Fraser N (1989) Unruly practices (University of Minnesota
Press, Minneapolis)
Fuller D (1997) ‘Credit union development in Kingston
upon Hul” Regional Review 7(1), 5-6
- (1998) ’Credit union development: financial inclusion
and exclusion’ Geoforum 29(2), 145-58
Ceorges R and Jones M (1980) People studying people
(University of California Press, Los Angeles)
227
Hobbs R (1988) Doing the business (Oxford University
Press, Oxford)
Howe I (1954) ’The age of conformity’ Partisan Review 21,
7-3 3
Johnston R J (1997) Geography and geographers: AngloAmerican human geography since 1945 (Arnold, London)
Katz C (1992) ‘All the world is staged: intellectuals and the
projects of ethnography’ Environment and Planning D:
Society and Space 10, 495-5 10
- (1994) ‘Playing the field: questions of fieldwork in
geography’ Professional Geographer 46( 1), 73-80
Kitchin R (1999) ‘Morals and ethics in geographical studies
of disability’ in Proctor J and Smith D (eds) Geography
and ethics: a journey through a moral terrain (Routledge,
London), 223-36
Kristeva J (1982) Powers of horror (Columbia University
Press, New York)
May T (1993) ‘Feelings matter: inverting the hidden equation’ in Hobbs R and May T (eds) lnterpreting the field:
accounts of ethnography (Oxford University Press,
Oxford), 69-98
Merrifield A (1995) ‘Situated knowledge through exploration: reflections on Bunge’s geographical expeditions’
Antipode 2 7( 1), 49-70
Pfeil F (1994) ‘No basta teorizar: in-difference to solidarity
in contemporary fiction, theory, and practice’ in Crewal I
and Kaplan C (eds) Scattered hegemonies (University of
Minnesota Press, Minneapolis), 197-230
Prince H C (1971) ’America! America? Views on a melting
pot 1: questions of social relevance’ Area 3, 150-53
Probyn E (1992) ’Technologizing the self: a future anterior
for cultural studies’ in Crossberg L, Nelson C and
Treichler P A (eds) Cultural studies (Routledge, New
York), 501-1 1
Punch M (1986) The politics and ethics of fieldwork (Sage,
Thousand Oaks, CA)
Robinson J (1994) ’White women researching/representing
others: from anti-apartheid to postcolonialism’ in Blunt A
and Rose C (eds) Writing. women and space (Cuilford
Press, New York), 197-226
Routledge P (1996) ‘The third space as critical engagement’
Antipode 28(4), 399-41 9
Smith D (1976) 70what extent is the geographer’s world
the real world-invited comment’ Area 8(2), 83-4
Stanley L and Wise S (1993) Breaking out again: feminist
ontology and epistemology (Routledge, London)